Tuesday, June 17, 2008
M&A
my experience has been that SO many people are loving this social enterprise/market principles and strategies in the social sector ideathat there is a lot of duplication and a lot of opportuniststhe social sector needs a deluge of M&A if you ask me.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Democracy in America
In my undergraduate coursework I took an interdisciplinary course on civic engagement which included a practicum component, that for me, included a stint at the Claremont Chamber of Commerce working on their "Leadership Claremont" program. This is where I really became friends with Alexis de Tocqueville and where I picked up an interest in social capital--something I had long understood without knowing the name for it.
Now that this interest has developed into a particular focus on leadership, social enterprise, and the developing world I find myself returning again to his observations on what makes this country tick. I find it so interesting that a concept like social enterprise has taken root and spread all over the world--when at its core the premise is also so American (in the sense that Tocqueville observed)--the entreprenuerally spirit and the desire to create formal associations. In large part, it is probably a much greater reflection of globalization and the spread of free markets. But it is also what has made the research regarding the subject proliferate here.
In “What Hath God Wrought,” Daniel Walker Howe's history of 19th-century America, he quotes Ralph Waldo Emerson as telling a meeting of the Mercantile Library Association in 1844 that “America is the country of the future. It is a country of beginnings, of projects, of vast designs and expectations.” I think grounding the discipline in both this spirit and other historical antecedents, philosophical and programmatic (some of William James' writing on pragmatism, John Rawls on justice) could add a rich texture to the resulting strategies, prescriptions, and theories that will dominate the next layer of research on social enterprise.
It is important as this discussion unfolds to both tap into these underlying philosophies but to also be open to shifting course and adopting strategies that maybe aren't as culturally "natural" in the United States. One of the observations of social entreprenuers is their tendency to be stand-out leaders with strong visions. Is there a role for leaderless leadership in some organizations or some communities? It will be helpful to ask--what are some other ways of being in the world? It is a wide universe we are all seeking to learn about, how do we push on through repetitive ideas in an often saturated market so that our energies are spent effectively?
Now that this interest has developed into a particular focus on leadership, social enterprise, and the developing world I find myself returning again to his observations on what makes this country tick. I find it so interesting that a concept like social enterprise has taken root and spread all over the world--when at its core the premise is also so American (in the sense that Tocqueville observed)--the entreprenuerally spirit and the desire to create formal associations. In large part, it is probably a much greater reflection of globalization and the spread of free markets. But it is also what has made the research regarding the subject proliferate here.
In “What Hath God Wrought,” Daniel Walker Howe's history of 19th-century America, he quotes Ralph Waldo Emerson as telling a meeting of the Mercantile Library Association in 1844 that “America is the country of the future. It is a country of beginnings, of projects, of vast designs and expectations.” I think grounding the discipline in both this spirit and other historical antecedents, philosophical and programmatic (some of William James' writing on pragmatism, John Rawls on justice) could add a rich texture to the resulting strategies, prescriptions, and theories that will dominate the next layer of research on social enterprise.
It is important as this discussion unfolds to both tap into these underlying philosophies but to also be open to shifting course and adopting strategies that maybe aren't as culturally "natural" in the United States. One of the observations of social entreprenuers is their tendency to be stand-out leaders with strong visions. Is there a role for leaderless leadership in some organizations or some communities? It will be helpful to ask--what are some other ways of being in the world? It is a wide universe we are all seeking to learn about, how do we push on through repetitive ideas in an often saturated market so that our energies are spent effectively?
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Chronology Critique
The Institute for Social Entreprenuers (founded and led by Jerr Boschee) issued a draft of a timeline they are compiling titled, "Evolution of the social enterprise industry: A chronology of key events." I found it a useful introduction and it filled in some holes that were missing in my understanding of the history of the development of the idea. Though the authors note that it is a summary of key events that have shaped the industry, a parallel summary with the growth of the academic literature demonstrating linkages to other fields would be helpful. Even searching out the academic literature there seems to be a preponderance of empirical research and practicum-based publishing.
Besides the format being slightly difficult to follow, there does seem to be a surplus of references to Boschee's initiatives. I am not suggesting his work hasn't been important or even catalytic, but it reminds me of Ralph Waldo Emerson's quote, "All history becomes subjective; in other words there is properly no history, only biography."
The historical antecedents noted (courtesy of Jim McClurg) need to be fleshed out a little more extensively. The typology is noted but not the actor or some key examples (i.e. Higher Education (tuition), Monastaries (wine and cheese sales), etc.). I am thinking particularly of the Jesuits as a great example--not only the substance of their entreprenuerial activity but the spirit of it as well. Sherrill Johnson wrote an excellent literature review for the Canadian Centre for Social Entreprenuership in 2000 where she quotes Bornstein who charecterized a social entreprenuer as "...a pathbreaker with a powerful idea, who combines visionary and real world problem-solving creativity, who has a strong ethical fibre and who is totally possesed by his or her vision for change." More thoughts on Jesuits another time.
Lots of good reading mentioned (must assemble massive bibliography!) but a format that tracks academic publications in one color and initiatives in another would be more useful.
My general thoughts are that this is one area I want to pursue further--I think grounding the literature in ancient examples and a variety of disciplines may aide in legitimating the field of study and clarifying future research objectives. This, in turn, should fine-tune the "how-to" work of practitioners and consultants.
Bibliography:
Bornstein, David (1998) "Changing the world on a shoestring: ambitious foundation promotes social change by finding 'social entreprenuers'" Atlantic Monthly, January, Vol. 281, No.1, pp34-39.
Johnson, Sherrill (2000) "Literature Review on Social Entreprenuership" Canadian Centre for Social Entreprenuership, p.9.
The Institute for Social Entreprenuers (April 2, 2008) "Evolution of the social enterprise industry: A chronology of key events."
Besides the format being slightly difficult to follow, there does seem to be a surplus of references to Boschee's initiatives. I am not suggesting his work hasn't been important or even catalytic, but it reminds me of Ralph Waldo Emerson's quote, "All history becomes subjective; in other words there is properly no history, only biography."
The historical antecedents noted (courtesy of Jim McClurg) need to be fleshed out a little more extensively. The typology is noted but not the actor or some key examples (i.e. Higher Education (tuition), Monastaries (wine and cheese sales), etc.). I am thinking particularly of the Jesuits as a great example--not only the substance of their entreprenuerial activity but the spirit of it as well. Sherrill Johnson wrote an excellent literature review for the Canadian Centre for Social Entreprenuership in 2000 where she quotes Bornstein who charecterized a social entreprenuer as "...a pathbreaker with a powerful idea, who combines visionary and real world problem-solving creativity, who has a strong ethical fibre and who is totally possesed by his or her vision for change." More thoughts on Jesuits another time.
Lots of good reading mentioned (must assemble massive bibliography!) but a format that tracks academic publications in one color and initiatives in another would be more useful.
My general thoughts are that this is one area I want to pursue further--I think grounding the literature in ancient examples and a variety of disciplines may aide in legitimating the field of study and clarifying future research objectives. This, in turn, should fine-tune the "how-to" work of practitioners and consultants.
Bibliography:
Bornstein, David (1998) "Changing the world on a shoestring: ambitious foundation promotes social change by finding 'social entreprenuers'" Atlantic Monthly, January, Vol. 281, No.1, pp34-39.
Johnson, Sherrill (2000) "Literature Review on Social Entreprenuership" Canadian Centre for Social Entreprenuership, p.9.
The Institute for Social Entreprenuers (April 2, 2008) "Evolution of the social enterprise industry: A chronology of key events."
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
The High Road and the Low Road
I think immediately of three places one can go to learn the Most Important Ideas (MII) relating to a topic. The best place takes the most time and involves compiling many books and articles relating to that topic, then combing the index, footnotes, and bibliography for the authors, ideas, and books that appear most often. Next you read all those authors, learn about those ideas, then sit down and write out how they all inter-relate, what the MII are, and why they are important. This is what I am attempting to do over the next two years.
The other two ways involve (a) opening a Google page, typing in said topic, and reading the first three links that come up, or if you are really lazy or pressed for time, just the Wikipedia page. This is very tempting.
Or (b), and only slightly more respectable than option a, is going to Amazon.com and typing in the topic, reading the summary and reviews for the topic, as well as the books that Amazon says, "the same person who bought this book also bought..." This is also very tempting. I will say, however, that I am curious how they will compare. Will the MII come from the books Amazon recommends? Or are the real gems hiding under heavier rocks?
My gut instinct is that while a number of the "classics" will come up on such searches, many popular books on Amazon are a little "Social Enterprise Light" and many of the best academic ideas are published in journals and best found through J-STOR or the like. We'll see.
It is incredible how many topics I probably seem very knowledeable on that have only encountered the second two processes. Gritty research is like cooking Thanksgiving dinner though--a hellava lot of work but totally worth it at the end.
The other two ways involve (a) opening a Google page, typing in said topic, and reading the first three links that come up, or if you are really lazy or pressed for time, just the Wikipedia page. This is very tempting.
Or (b), and only slightly more respectable than option a, is going to Amazon.com and typing in the topic, reading the summary and reviews for the topic, as well as the books that Amazon says, "the same person who bought this book also bought..." This is also very tempting. I will say, however, that I am curious how they will compare. Will the MII come from the books Amazon recommends? Or are the real gems hiding under heavier rocks?
My gut instinct is that while a number of the "classics" will come up on such searches, many popular books on Amazon are a little "Social Enterprise Light" and many of the best academic ideas are published in journals and best found through J-STOR or the like. We'll see.
It is incredible how many topics I probably seem very knowledeable on that have only encountered the second two processes. Gritty research is like cooking Thanksgiving dinner though--a hellava lot of work but totally worth it at the end.
"What does it mean? Why is it important?"
There is a discussion at the following blog regarding blogging as a Literature Review.
http://blog.ulisesmejias.com/2006/01/25/the-blog-as-dissertation-literature-review/
I want to comment in particular on Dave Boote's reply. Boote co-authored (with Penny Beile) the article "Scholars Before Researchers: On the Centrality of the Dissertation Literature Review in Research Preparation," published in the Journal Educational Researcher in the August/September 2005 issue.
I enjoyed his general thoughts on the doctoral process and what it means. He describes students who write less-than-exemplery dissertations, "They cannot even imagine themselves writing for the ages, for another doctoral students 50 or 100 years from now grappling with the same topic...The great majority of scholarly publishing is at best Kuhnian “normal science” – small steps within a program of research." I think a major challenge in tackling the subject matter I am taking on will be to dance well between the "sexy," immediately practical bits and the bigger idea and bigger issues at stake.
This is one thing I admire so much when read and re-read Peter Drucker (and trust me, there is always something you haven't read.) So much of what he wrote and said crossed disciplines and even time and many of the things he wrote in 1950 sound fresh today. As a scholar of management I often feel that this is the legacy I follow-in. Drucker, James MacGregor Burns, my mentor Jean Lipman-Blueman each have a profound ability to draw from economics, science, philosophy, history, and sociology; using them to shed light on the most difficult problems facing organizations today.
It is both discouraging and relieving to know I will probably be a "normal" scientist, chiseling my little dent in a big boulder. I do, however, believe that becoming an excellent scholar is aided by this long-term view. Instead of allowing myself to feel inundated by everything out there I must keep my focus, asking, as Boote does, "What does it mean? Why is it important?" To discern those ideas that are lasting contributions.
http://blog.ulisesmejias.com/2006/01/25/the-blog-as-dissertation-literature-review/
I want to comment in particular on Dave Boote's reply. Boote co-authored (with Penny Beile) the article "Scholars Before Researchers: On the Centrality of the Dissertation Literature Review in Research Preparation," published in the Journal Educational Researcher in the August/September 2005 issue.
I enjoyed his general thoughts on the doctoral process and what it means. He describes students who write less-than-exemplery dissertations, "They cannot even imagine themselves writing for the ages, for another doctoral students 50 or 100 years from now grappling with the same topic...The great majority of scholarly publishing is at best Kuhnian “normal science” – small steps within a program of research." I think a major challenge in tackling the subject matter I am taking on will be to dance well between the "sexy," immediately practical bits and the bigger idea and bigger issues at stake.
This is one thing I admire so much when read and re-read Peter Drucker (and trust me, there is always something you haven't read.) So much of what he wrote and said crossed disciplines and even time and many of the things he wrote in 1950 sound fresh today. As a scholar of management I often feel that this is the legacy I follow-in. Drucker, James MacGregor Burns, my mentor Jean Lipman-Blueman each have a profound ability to draw from economics, science, philosophy, history, and sociology; using them to shed light on the most difficult problems facing organizations today.
It is both discouraging and relieving to know I will probably be a "normal" scientist, chiseling my little dent in a big boulder. I do, however, believe that becoming an excellent scholar is aided by this long-term view. Instead of allowing myself to feel inundated by everything out there I must keep my focus, asking, as Boote does, "What does it mean? Why is it important?" To discern those ideas that are lasting contributions.
The Compass and the Destination
To begin on a journey I believe you must know generally where you are headed and you must have a compass of some kind to show you the way to that destination. That is to say, an end that defines the mean. To begin the journey I need to know generally where I would like to go and I need some directional tools to get me there. That does not assume that I will not alter it at some point or take a detour, but without these two things I will get very lost, or worse, I won't begin my journey at all.
Many young people, especially in New York City where I live, suffer from problems arising from some combination of these factors. Some do not know where they are going, they have a great compass, but it does them no good and they hop from job to job performing well but creating no real value because they can't stick around long enough to see anything through.
Some people have a great destination in mind but they do not have mentors, practical tools, the will, or the emotional resources to get there. They can explain very well what they hope to accomplish but when you look at their life and the measure of their days they are not doing anything to get themselves there--some even think if they just wander around long enough they will end up at their destination accidentally!
Some people have neither. The years go by and they move from one job to another, or sit in the same one day in and day out. They get older. If you ask them they really don't know what they want and there is an underriding anxiousness about making a decision at all--they are paralyzed.
The last are those with both a functioning compass and a clear destination. They create value in the organizations where they work because they see it as a means to their goal, yet understand that journeys take time and integrity and character will ultimately make them more successful in the long run. Some of these people may never reach their intended destination! But they accept that as part of the journey, they are flexible and can reorient their path with their trusty compass, picking a new destination when the path is too difficult or when they are needed elsewhere.
Pursuing research in a field of study is like this. From time to time I will attempt to tag posts as compass or destination as I assemble some tools for the journey and as I clarify my destination.
Many young people, especially in New York City where I live, suffer from problems arising from some combination of these factors. Some do not know where they are going, they have a great compass, but it does them no good and they hop from job to job performing well but creating no real value because they can't stick around long enough to see anything through.
Some people have a great destination in mind but they do not have mentors, practical tools, the will, or the emotional resources to get there. They can explain very well what they hope to accomplish but when you look at their life and the measure of their days they are not doing anything to get themselves there--some even think if they just wander around long enough they will end up at their destination accidentally!
Some people have neither. The years go by and they move from one job to another, or sit in the same one day in and day out. They get older. If you ask them they really don't know what they want and there is an underriding anxiousness about making a decision at all--they are paralyzed.
The last are those with both a functioning compass and a clear destination. They create value in the organizations where they work because they see it as a means to their goal, yet understand that journeys take time and integrity and character will ultimately make them more successful in the long run. Some of these people may never reach their intended destination! But they accept that as part of the journey, they are flexible and can reorient their path with their trusty compass, picking a new destination when the path is too difficult or when they are needed elsewhere.
Pursuing research in a field of study is like this. From time to time I will attempt to tag posts as compass or destination as I assemble some tools for the journey and as I clarify my destination.
Research: Where have I been?
In the previous post where I submitted the thoughts of the Venerable Mind on my graduate school chances an important point regarding methodology was raised. Though I am being snarky I will say that he was absolutely correct on all points and I am very grateful that he took the time to respond to me. I think in my years at CMC, and earlier at the Drucker School I allowed an inflated ego and sheer impulsivity to take the advice and time of other Venerable Minds for granted. I am now more careful when enlisting their advice or recommendation and count myself as very lucky for this access.
I will begin by confessing I haven't read any good research methodology books. Both of my parents should role their eyes at this point and mention the scores of them on our shelves at home but as there are hundreds and hundreds of books on those shelves and I am not sure how I was supposed to find them. My understanding from high school is that you should read books, compare them, and then craft 5 paragraph essays with one main point that involve lots of block quotes to take up space. You should state many unique, original, thoughts making sure that everyone knows how brilliant you are for thinking them and rest-assured that no one else has ever thought such brilliant thoughts.
Unfortunately this system did not work so well in college, where my verbosity and hyperbole was scorned rather than appreciated. Research papers always frustrated me because I was sure I had better things to do than repeat back other people's brilliant thoughts--I had much more important things to say! And then there was Professor Jack Pitney, promoting the antithesis of my style. His papers were always short (1-3 pages), they must adhere strictly to to the Elements of Style, and he really didn't think my thoughts were so brilliant. Professor Ward Elliott, as well, would frequently bring up what I thought were obscure references until I realized these were quite important people who had made an actual impact (as opposed to my own imagined one) that I should probably read.
Each course, paper, and professor altered my thinking on this. The final moment when understanding came occured in my last weeks of college. In writing my senior thesis on the Evangelical vote in Oregon during the 2004 election I realized that the literature review, both as process and product, was far better than any of the "brilliant" observations I laid forth in later chapters.
Now I feel a little bit like I am starting from scratch. This blogging is my attempt to structure this new period in my studies. I feel like something large is looming over my head and I must learn all of the ends and outs of it, en masse and in particular, and then I can hoist it down and engage in chiseling my own little niche into it.
As Reepicheap says in The Last Battle, "Further Up! and Further In!"
I will begin by confessing I haven't read any good research methodology books. Both of my parents should role their eyes at this point and mention the scores of them on our shelves at home but as there are hundreds and hundreds of books on those shelves and I am not sure how I was supposed to find them. My understanding from high school is that you should read books, compare them, and then craft 5 paragraph essays with one main point that involve lots of block quotes to take up space. You should state many unique, original, thoughts making sure that everyone knows how brilliant you are for thinking them and rest-assured that no one else has ever thought such brilliant thoughts.
Unfortunately this system did not work so well in college, where my verbosity and hyperbole was scorned rather than appreciated. Research papers always frustrated me because I was sure I had better things to do than repeat back other people's brilliant thoughts--I had much more important things to say! And then there was Professor Jack Pitney, promoting the antithesis of my style. His papers were always short (1-3 pages), they must adhere strictly to to the Elements of Style, and he really didn't think my thoughts were so brilliant. Professor Ward Elliott, as well, would frequently bring up what I thought were obscure references until I realized these were quite important people who had made an actual impact (as opposed to my own imagined one) that I should probably read.
Each course, paper, and professor altered my thinking on this. The final moment when understanding came occured in my last weeks of college. In writing my senior thesis on the Evangelical vote in Oregon during the 2004 election I realized that the literature review, both as process and product, was far better than any of the "brilliant" observations I laid forth in later chapters.
Now I feel a little bit like I am starting from scratch. This blogging is my attempt to structure this new period in my studies. I feel like something large is looming over my head and I must learn all of the ends and outs of it, en masse and in particular, and then I can hoist it down and engage in chiseling my own little niche into it.
As Reepicheap says in The Last Battle, "Further Up! and Further In!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)